Mass Layoff Statistics

Extended Mass Layoffs (Quarterly) News Release

For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT) Wednesday, May 12, 2010 USDL-10-0644
Technical information: (202) 691-6392 * mlsinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/mls
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov
EXTENDED MASS LAYOFFS -- FIRST QUARTER 2010
Employers initiated 1,564 mass layoff events in the first quarter of 2010 that
resulted in the separation of 221,150 workers from their jobs for at least 31
days, according to preliminary figures released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Both events and separations decreased by record amounts from the
same period a year earlier, when layoffs and associated separated workers
reached program highs (with data available back to 1995). (See table A.)
Seventeen of 18 major industry sectors in the private nonfarm economy regis-
tered sharp declines over the year in the number of extended mass layoff
events, with 12 industries registering record declines in the number of events.
Forty-two percent of employers expected to recall at least some laid-off work-
ers, up from 25 percent a year earlier. First quarter 2010 layoff data are
preliminary and are subject to revision. (See the Technical Note.)
The national unemployment rate averaged 10.4 percent, not seasonally adjusted,
in the first quarter of 2010, up from 8.8 percent a year earlier. Private non-
farm payroll employment, not seasonally adjusted, decreased by 2.8 percent
(-3,032,000) over the year.
Industry Distribution of Extended Layoffs
Manufacturing firms reported 380 events involving the separation of 51,333
workers. Manufacturing accounted for 24 percent of private nonfarm extended
layoff events and 23 percent of related separations in the first quarter of
2010, the lowest proportions for any first quarter. A year earlier, manu-
facturing made up 40 percent of events and 39 percent of separations. (See
table 1.) The largest numbers of separations within the manufacturing sector
were associated with food (largely from fruit and vegetable canning) and
transportation equipment (largely from automobile manufacturing). All 21 manu-
facturing subsectors experienced over-the-year decreases in the number of lay-
off events.
Construction firms recorded 400 events and 42,040 separations, primarily in
specialty trade contractors (largely from nonresidential electrical contrac-
tors) and heavy and civil engineering construction (largely from highway,
street, and bridge construction). In the first quarter of 2010, layoffs in
this sector comprised 26 percent of events and 19 percent of separations.
Seventeen of 18 major industry sectors in the private nonfarm economy regis-
tered sharp declines over the year in the number of extended mass layoff
events. Layoff events in 12 industries decreased by record levels--mining;
manufacturing; wholesale trade; retail trade; transportation and warehousing;
information; finance and insurance; real estate and rental and leasing; pro-
fessional and technical services; management of companies and enterprises;
administrative and waste services; and other services, except public adminis-
tration.
Reasons for Extended Layoffs
Among the seven categories of economic reasons for extended mass layoffs, busi-
ness demand factors accounted for 41 percent of events and 38 percent of re-
lated separations during the first quarter of 2010, down from 54 percent of
events and 48 percent of separations in the same period a year earlier. (See
table 2.) Separations related to business demand factors decreased over the
year by 250,749, or 75 percent. Within the business demand category, the larg-
est over-the-year decrease in separations was due to slack work/insufficient
demand (-205,424).
Table A. Selected measures of extended mass layoff activity
Period Layoff events Separations Initial claimants
2006
January-March .......... 963 183,089 193,510
April-June ............. 1,353 295,964 264,927
July-September ......... 929 160,254 161,764
October-December ....... 1,640 296,662 330,954
2007
January-March .......... 1,110 225,600 199,250
April-June ............. 1,421 278,719 259,234
July-September ......... 1,018 160,024 173,077
October-December ....... 1,814 301,592 347,151
2008
January-March .......... 1,340 230,098 259,292
April-June ............. 1,756 354,713 339,630
July-September ......... 1,581 290,453 304,340
October-December ....... 3,582 641,714 766,780
2009
January-March (r) ....... 3,979 705,141 835,551
April-June (r) .......... 3,395 651,318 731,035
July-September (r) ...... 2,034 345,529 406,715
October-December (r) ... 2,419 406,815 466,539
2010
January-March (p) ....... 1,564 221,150 214,204
r = revised.
p = preliminary.
Movement of Work
In the first quarter of 2010, 61 extended mass layoffs involved movement of
work and were associated with 8,499 separated workers. The number of events
decreased by 31 from the first quarter of 2009, and the number of separations
decreased by 7,002 over the year. Movement of work layoffs accounted for 5
percent of both nonseasonal layoff events and separations during the first
quarter of 2010. (See table 9.)
Nearly 6 out of 10 extended mass layoff events related to movement of work
were from manufacturing industries. In comparison, manufacturing accounted
for more than 2 out of 10 events in the total private nonfarm economy. (See
table 6.) Employers cited organizational changes in 44 percent of the ex-
tended mass layoff events involving the movement of work. (See table 7.) The
largest numbers of workers affected by the movement of work among the regions
were in the South and Midwest. (See table 8.) Among the states, California,
New Jersey, and Tennessee reported the highest numbers of separations associ-
ated with movement of work.
The 61 extended layoff events with movement of work for the first quarter of
2010 involved 82 identifiable relocations of work actions. Employers were
able to provide more complete separations information for 58 of the actions.
Of these, 86 percent involved work moving within the same company, and 78
percent were domestic reassignments. (See table 10.)
Recall Expectations
Forty-two percent of employers reporting an extended mass layoff in the first
quarter of 2010 indicated they anticipated some type of recall, up from 25 per-
cent a year earlier. Excluding extended mass layoff events due to seasonal
work and vacation period, in which 88 percent of the employers expected a re-
call, employers anticipated recalling laid-off workers in just 27 percent of
the events. Of those employers expecting to recall workers, 27 percent indi-
cated that the offer would be extended to all displaced employees, and 67
percent of employers anticipated extending the offer to at least half of the
workers. Sixty-seven percent of employers expecting to recall laid-off employ-
ees intend to do so within 6 months. (See table 11.)
Size of Extended Layoffs
In the first quarter of 2010, the average size of a layoff (as measured by
separations per layoff event) was 141, the smallest average size in pro-
gram history. (See table 12.) Events during the first quarter of 2010 were
concentrated at the lower end of the extended layoff-size spectrum, with 75
percent involving fewer than 150 workers, up from 64 percent a year ago.
The percentage distribution of extended mass layoff events involving 500 or
more workers registered program lows for both events (3 percent) and sepa-
rated workers (19 percent). (See table 13.)
Table B. Metropolitan areas with the largest number of initial claimants
associated with extended mass layoff events in the first quarter of 2010,
by residency of claimants
2009 I (r) 2010 I (p)
Metropolitan area Initial Initial
claimants Rank claimants Rank
Total, 372 metropolitan areas ...... 661,323 171,438
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, Calif. ... 50,412 1 15,005 1
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island, N.Y.-N.J.-Pa. .................. 34,215 3 14,600 2
Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, Ill.-Ind.-Wis. .. 27,239 4 9,687 3
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, Calif. ... 19,226 6 7,086 4
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, Calif. ...... 21,131 5 6,376 5
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, Calif. ...... 11,016 9 3,586 6
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, Calif. ..... 10,245 10 3,334 7
Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, Calif. 8,759 14 3,311 8
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, Texas .......... 8,864 13 3,094 9
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, Pa.-
N.J.-Del.-Md. .......................... 7,556 19 3,056 10
r = revised.
p = preliminary.
NOTE: The geographic boundaries of the metropolitan areas shown in this table are
defined in Office of Management and Budget Bulletin 10-02, December 01, 2009.
Initial Claimant Characteristics
A total of 214,204 initial claimants for unemployment insurance were asso-
ciated with extended mass layoffs in the first quarter of 2010. Of these
claimants, 13 percent were black, 17 percent were Hispanic, 35 percent were
women, and 19 percent were 55 years of age or older. (See table 3.) Among
persons in the civilian labor force for the same period, 12 percent were
black, 15 percent were Hispanic, 47 percent were women, and 19 percent were
55 years of age or older.
Geographic Distribution
Among the four census regions, the Midwest and the West recorded the high-
est numbers of separations due to extended mass layoff events in the first
quarter of 2010. Among the nine census divisions, the highest numbers of
separations were in the East North Central and Pacific. All regions and
divisions registered record level over-the-year decreases in the number of
separations with the exception of the West South Central division. (See
table 4.)
California recorded the largest number of worker separations, followed by
Illinois, Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. (See table 5.) After excluding
the impact of seasonal reasons, these five states still reported the highest
numbers of separated workers. Over the year, 49 states reported decreased num-
bers of laid-off workers, led by California, Florida, and Michigan. Of these
49 states, twenty registered record over-the-year decreases in the number of
separations--Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Mary-
land, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsyl-
vania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wis-
consin.
Eighty percent of the initial claimants associated with extended mass layoff
events in the first quarter of 2010 resided within metropolitan areas, nearly
the same as a year earlier (79 percent). Among the 372 metropolitan areas,
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, Calif., reported the highest number of resi-
dent initial claimants. Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, Texas, Philadelphia-Camden-
Wilmington, Pa.-N.J.-Del.-Md., and Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, Calif.,
moved into the top 10 metropolitan areas in terms of initial claims by residency
of claimant in the first quarter of 2010, replacing Detroit-Warren-Livonia, Mich.,
Las Vegas-Paradise, Nev., and Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, Fla., from
the previous year. (See table B.)
Note
The quarterly series on extended mass layoffs cover layoffs of at least 31-days
duration that involve 50 or more individuals from a single employer filing ini-
tial claims for unemployment insurance during a consecutive 5-week period. Ap-
proximately 30 days after a mass layoff is triggered, the employer is contacted
for additional information. Data for the current quarter are preliminary and
subject to revision. This release also includes revised data for previous quar-
ters. Data are not seasonally adjusted, but survey data suggest that there is a
seasonal pattern to layoffs. Thus, comparisons between consecutive quarters
should not be used as an indicator of trend. For additional information about
the program, see the Technical Note.
____________
The Mass Layoffs in April 2010 news release is scheduled to be released on
Friday, May 21, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. (EDT).

Technical Note
The Mass Layoff Statistics (MLS) program is a federal-state program which
identifies, describes, and tracks the effects of major job cutbacks, using
data from each state's unemployment insurance database. Employers which have
at least 50 initial claims filed against them during a consecutive 5-week per-
iod are contacted by the state agency to determine whether these separations
are of at least 31 days duration, and, if so, information is obtained on the
total number of persons separated and the reasons for these separations. Em-
ployers are identified according to industry classification and location, and
unemployment insurance claimants are identified by such demographic factors as
age, race, gender, ethnic group, and place of residence. The program yields
information on an individual's entire spell of unemployment, to the point when
regular unemployment insurance benefits are exhausted.
Definitions
Domestic relocation. A movement of work from an establishment within the
U.S. to a location also inside the U.S., either within the same company or to
a different company altogether (domestic outsourcing).
Employer. A firm covered by state unemployment insurance laws. Information
on employers is obtained from the Quarterly Census ofEmployment and Wages (QCEW)
program, which is administered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
Extended mass layoff event. A layoff defined by the filing of 50 or more
initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits from an employer during a
5-week period, with at least 50 workers separated for more than 30 days. Such
layoffs involve both persons subject to recall and those who are terminated.
Initial claimant. A person who files any notice of unemployment to initiate
a request either for a determination of entitlement to and eligibility for com-
pensation, or for a subsequent period of unemployment within a benefit year or
period of eligibility.
Movement of work. The reassignment of work activities previously performed
at the worksite by the company experiencing the layoff (1) to another worksite
within the company; (2) to another company under formal contractual arrange-
ments at the same worksite; or (3) to another company under formal contractual
arrangements at another worksite either within or outside of the U.S.
Outsourcing. A movement of work that was formerly conducted in-house by em-
ployees paid directly by a company to a different company under a contractual
arrangement.
Overseas relocation. A movement of work from an establishment within the
U.S. to a location outside of the U.S. (offshoring), either within the same
company or to a different company altogether (offshore outsourcing).
Relocation of work action. A movement-of-work action where the employer
provides information on the new location of work and/or the number of workers
affected by the movement. Events may involve more than one action per employer
if work is moved to more than one location.
Separations. The number of individuals who have become displaced during an
extended mass layoff event as provided by the employer, regardless of whether
they file for unemployment insurance or not.
Worksite closure. The complete closure of an employer or the partial closure
of an employer with multiple locations where entire worksites affected by layoffs
are closed.
Revisions to preliminary data
The latest quarterly data in this news release are considered preliminary.
After the initial publication of quarterly information, more data are collected
as remaining employer interviews for the quarter are completed and additional
initial claimant information associated with extended layoff events is received.
Movement of work concepts and questions
Beginning in 2004, the economic reasons "domestic relocation" and "overseas
relocation" were replaced by the movement of work concept. The movement of work
data are not collected in the same way as the relocation reasons in releases prior
to 2004; therefore, the movement of work data are not comparable to the data for
those discontinued reasons.
Questions on movement of work and location are asked for all layoff events when
the reason for separation is other than "seasonal work" or "vacation period," as
these are unlikely. Movement of work questions are asked after the analyst veri-
fies that a layoff in fact occurred and lasted more than 30 days. If the reason
for layoff is other than seasonal or vacation, the employer was asked the following:
(1) "Did this layoff include your company moving work from this location(s)
to a different geographic location(s) within your company?"
(2) "Did this layoff include your company moving work that was performed in-
house by your employees to a different company, through contractual arrangements?"
A "yes" response to either question is followed by:
"Is the location inside or outside of the U.S.?" and "How many of the layoffs
were a result of this relocation?"
Layoff actions are classified as "domestic relocation" if the
employer responds "yes" to questions 1 and/or 2 and indicates the
location(s) was inside the U.S.; "overseas relocation" indicates that
the location(s) was outside the U.S.
Reliability of the data
The identification of employers and layoff events in the MLS program and asso-
ciated characteristics of claimants is based on administrative data on covered
employers and unemployment insurance claims, and, therefore, is not subject to
issues associated with sampling error. Nonsampling errors such as typographical
errors may occur but are not likely to be significant. While the MLS employers
and layoff events are not subject to sampling error, and all such employers are
asked the interview questions, the employer responses are subject to nonsampling
error. Nonsampling error can occur for many reasons, including the inability to
obtain information for all respondents, inability or unwillingness of respondents
to provide correct information, and errors made in the collection or processing
of the data. For the first quarter of 2010, outright refusal to participate in
the employer interview accounted for 4.2 percent of all private nonfarm events.
Although included in the total number of instances involving the movement of work,
for the first quarter, employers in 24 relocations were unable to provide the num-
ber of separations specifically associated with the movement of work, 1 of which
involved out-of-country moves.
Additional information
Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired in-
dividuals upon request. Voice phone: (202)691-5200; Federal Relay Service:
(800) 877-8339.